Go to page

Evidence is not a synonym for proof. Evidence is simply ANYTHING provided in support o fan argument. EG TheTorah, New Testament, written accounts of signs and wonders, as well as recent testimonials, are ALL evidence for the existence of God/ Jesus/Whatever.---what they are not is proof.

The question of Jesus' historicity is important in the way in which it is studied, and the way claims are made. Imo. It's important that faith does not replace facts and reasoning in historical discourse.. I think it is of peripheral interest as an area of study for the none believer. Perhaps also for the believer secure in his faith and capable of abstract thought.

Evidence is not a synonym for proof. Evidence is simply ANYTHING provided in support o fan argument. EG TheTorah, New Testament, written accounts of signs and wonders, as well as recent testimonials, are ALL evidence for the existence of God/ Jesus/Whatever.---what they are not is proof.

The same could be said for any history. You could claim that Hannibal was a mere invention by the Romans to explain away their defeats by the Cathsgians, a bogey man who never really existed, and all the evidence for him fabricated .

You can always claim there is no evidence if you simply declare any evidence that runs counter to your beliefs forgeries.

The question of Jesus' historicity is important in the way in which it is studied, and the way claims are made. Imo. It's important that faith does not replace facts and reasoning in historical discourse.. I think it is of peripheral interest as an area of study for the none believer. Perhaps also for the believer secure in his faith and capable of abstract thought.

It is also important to apply the same standards when evaluating facts and not apply different stardards dependinf on whether it suits your particular agenda.. Like saying that Polybius qualifies as a contemporary witness for Hannibal even though he never met the man or his most trusted subordinates, yet reject Paul who was well aquainted with Jesus brother and his lead disciple, which is more than Polybius could say for Hannibal..

It must be noted that you were not responding to others this time, yours and DiocletianIsBetterThanYou was an exchange that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread, and had no excuse by a desire to derailing the thread to promote you own agenda

Just because it makes it more believable doesn't mean the Muslims would forge a document that basically shows that they don't even know when their prophet died. If they are lying about that, then someone would ask the question: what else are they lying about? Once again, it makes no sense for Muslims to forge such a document.

If the battle were a lot smaller, more like a skirmish, would it still be the Battle of Yarmouk?

The Umayyad Caliphate most certainly employed non-Arabs, specifically non-Arab Muslims in their army. For example, the army of Qutayba ibn Muslim included a large number of non-Arab Muslims. Many non-Arab Muslims also rose through the Umayyad military hierarchy. For example Hayyan al-Nabati led an army of 7000 non-Arab Muslims. During the reign of Umar II, a delegation representing the Khurasan non-Arab Muslims arrived to meet the Caliph. They claimed that 20,000 Khurasanian non-Arab Muslims participated in Umayyad raids against their many enemies yet recevied no adequate pay or rewards. Since we don't know the exact composition of the Umayyad army that besieged Constantinople, we can't say that only Arabs fought there. In fact, given that the siege of the city was a personal project of the Caliph, it is more likely that the Umayyads threw everything they had at Constantinople, including their non-Arab units.

Can you give a primary source for the Battle of Antioch? I can find only a Wikipedia article with poor references to this battle, and other articles said there was a battle fought, but the details were not known.

Perhaps I've misunderstood: Yes, in the general sense an absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Trying to use it a such is perhaps ignorant.
However, such absence does IMPLY (suggest) absence. It is that suggestion which some serious scholars investigate. Try to avoid attacking the person when making a response; it is not an argument, and can reduce a rational discussion into an exchange of insults

However, to be fair, I would have found it difficult to remain civil to that member and his truly silly argument about the holocaust

Please, don’t be personal and get agitated because you and your friend Diocletianisbetterthanyou have been destroyed logically.

If you with your confused, illogical and contradictory talk are suggesting that Jesus’ existence is dubious then you are death wrong. Jesus’ existence is safely to assume taking the historical methods in consideration. It is not a coincidence that the vast scholars (BOTH Christians AND ALSO atheists) support that view when using the scientific methods the historians apply today.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.